Featured Response-able??

I could care less about what "Calvinistic scholars" or "Arminian" scholars and what they say or don't say. The Word of God teaches clearly that quickening is inseparable from gospel faith as the direct and immediate work of God created in the heart. 1 John 5:1 correctly uses the state of being present tense verb "is" born of God to show simeltaneous action between the present participle "believeth" and the Perfect passive tense verb "born of God." Likewise, in Ephesians 2:8 the perfect passive tense verb "saved" which contextually is being used as a synonym for "quickened" (vv. 1, 5) refers to a completed action in the past that stands completed up to present time of writing and "through faith" had to occur simeltaneous with that completed action and IN THAT ACTION, not afterwards, not before, but at the time of that action, thus simeltaneous in time. It is that completed action through faith which is "NOT OF YOURSELF but is the gift of God" as it is "his workmanship CREATED in Christ Jesus."

Hence, the creation of faith in the heart IS QUICKENING which is INITIAL SALVATION as it is a direct and immediate work of God when the gospel is empowered by God as His creative word in the heart that removes ignorance that alienates the sinner from the life of God.

 

The ONLY way? Really? Have your read all my posts over the decade? And do you honestly think my system (which, btw, is held to by significantly more Baptist scholars than yours) hasn't been thoroughly exegeted in countless works available to us all via the world wide web? The fact that my illustrations expose the irrational and ridiculous nature of your system in a clear concise manner certainly wouldn't sit well with you or any Calvinist, but that doesn't mean these have been my only resources in repudiating your dogma. They are just the last ones you remember in the line of reasons to reject Calvinism.

 

Since you "could care less," then apparently you must care some, thus I'll provide you a quote from Piper:

Not everybody is saved from God's wrath just because Christ died for sinners. There is a condition we must meet in order to be saved. I want to try to show that the condition, summed up here as repentance and faith, is conversion and that conversion is nothing less than the creation of a Christian Hedonist. (Desiring God)>>

<<New birth is not conditional. No act of ours brings it about. It is supernatural. Final salvation from future judgment is conditional. It will not happen apart from our persevering faith. (Desiring God)>>​

 

I am referring to the interaction between us not from your birth until death

You have no way to verify this wild assertion because history does not record the number of Baptists since the New Testament times.

I have yet to read one exegetical based exposition! I have read countless of eisgetical based expositions by your side - and every one flawed exegetically. Please cite one that you think is exegetically based exposition. You certainly have not produced even one such example in our discussion.

YOur illustrations expose nothing but your own erroneous views of scripture. If you understood the scripture and could provide an exegetical based response you would not have to resort to unbiblical philosophical responses and illustrations. The plain truth of God's word would be sufficient, convincing and enough BUT YOU DON"T because you can't and it is self-evident in all of our debates because you ALWAYS FLEE from the exegetical evidence presented and FLEE TO your unbiblical rationalizations for support.

Want to put it to the test? Let you and me take Romans 8:7-8 and see who provides exegesis versus eisgesis??

 

You know full well I've provide plenty of biblical arguments against your views along the way...

In fact, in my estimation your rebuttals of my exegesis of Acts 28, Mark 4, Matt. 13 and Romans 11 are very much lacking, but to accuse me of never making biblical arguments is clearly unfounded and unnecessary. When one can't deal with a particularly difficult accusation about their system, as with my analogies, they tend to divert and make such accusations as these. I understand.

I'm simply referring to statistical data available...but it really doesn't matter. Popularity doesn't prove truth...I just pointed that out because you speak as if my system has no exegetical backing to be found.

Exegesis, like beauty, is found in the eyes of its beholder.

Been there done that. I agreed with much of your exegesis, remember? Then I pointed you to our actual points of contention which weren't even addressed in that text, remember? Then you ignored those other, apparently lessor important texts, to focus back on your proof text which never said as much as you read into it, remember?

 

Whooooa! I remember it quite well and it is not as you report. You were forced to flee that text and IGNORE the plain exegetical evidence of that text which obliterated your whole system. Pleeeeeeease take me task and challenge me here!!

1. This text cannot have its source with the new nature but with the fallen nature with in the lost and saved - vv. 8-9

2. The very nature of what this text declares the fallen nature to be "IS" demands both irreversable total depravity and totally inabilty.

Enmity against God is not A possible characteristic but what it "IS" by its very nature which makes it IMPOSSIBLE to be subject to the law of God without changing that nature to its very OPPOSITE. There is no MIDDLE ground between "enmity" and "love" or between rebellion and submission but that is precisely what your EISGETICAL explanation demands for a lost man to come to Christ willingly and submissvely.

 

You're living in a dream world of assumption.

I see you still want to get on your merry-go-round eh? You don't understand election being synonymous with salvation and you can't make the connection. Faith is evidence of both, as in 'MY SHEEP hear my voice...'

As much as you want the above to be true in your gospel, sadly it isn't. Mans faith is the cause of salvation in your system as God cannot save a man until he 'exercises' faith, which in your message is an inherent ability within man, thus 'the ability is in man' and is not a supernatural gift of God and manifest evidence of salvation which also shows them as being His elect.

See my initial response above.

 

Me leaving a endless circular conversation where you kept saying the same thing over and over again while ignoring my rebuttals is not 'fleeing,' Biblicist. I'm sorry you feel you were short changed in your attempt to proof text your system on the exegesis of one verse, but I don't know how else to say that same thing to you more clearly than I already have.

We agree that men are born sinful and unable to submit to the laws of God. We agree that men would be helpless and hopeless without God's gracious help. We agree no matter what man does in the flesh it cannot please God. We agree that divine spiritual discernment is needed for man to understand and respond to the spiritual truths of God. We believe men are born lost and in need of a savior. We believe men's only hope is the grace of God.

Anything you say that validates these truths we hold in common with each other and there would be NO REASON for me to rebut them. Which is why I attempted time and time again to redirect the conversation to our ACTUAL POINTS OF CONTENTION.

Which have to do with the nature of God's gracious provision...(i.e. is the gospel a gracious provision of God? Is the gospel sufficient to enable a response? Must there also be an additional effectual work of grace in addition to His work through the gospel?)

That passage, regardless of what you want to read into it, does not even address these issues. The word gospel isn't even brought up, yet somehow that passage is supposed to teach us that the gospel is insufficient to enable a lost man to respond to God's gracious appeal to be reconciled from his lostness? REALLY?

I'm sorry, but I'm not getting back on that merry-go-round with you.

 

This statement provides a clear example of how you think and operate. You twist and turn things rather than accept face value what either I say or the scriptures say. I am not a fan of Piper and I am not a Reformed Baptist. I don't quote men to defend my position but I quote God's Word regardless of how it may or may not harmonize with men's statements, interpretations, opinions and traditions. I don't agree with Piper on many things.

If you want to make any headway in our discussion STICK TO GOD'S WORD ONLY.

 

I know this isn't true because you don't exist in my dream world. :smilewinkgrin:

and as my quote proves, neither do scholars like Piper...but to each his own. Believe whatever newfound dogma you want...you wouldn't want to read even folks from your own soteriological perspective, you might learn something.

Only if the son's return home was the cause of his father forgiveness. What you can't seem to grasp is that even those who beg for forgiveness don't deserve it.

God can do whatever He wants to do...we are talking about what God chooses to do and according to scripture, he graciously chooses to give grace to the humble, not because the humble deserve it, but because He is gracious.

 

Unfortunately you are absolutely correct. He cannot operate within the parameters of what is actually stated, but throws in diversions, uncited quotes from scholars as evidence in support of his diversion and pretends to have won some battle only he has created. The other unfortunate thing is he also does so with what the latter portion of your post above states, as you've mentioned yourself.

 

Google the phrase, "I could care less"

I was kidding you about a common misstatement of this phrase....let's lighten up a bit. Ok?

I was pointing out to P4T, if you remember, the most commonly held views of scholars in the Calvinistic camp. Thus, to provide a notable scholar from the Calvinistic camp is perfectly reasonable in order to show my point. As I told P4T, you are welcome to disagree with Piper...as there is much disagreement in the ranks of the "Reformed," but that doesn't change the point I was making and the distinction I was attempting to draw between "unconditional salvation" and "unconditional election." There is a difference whether you two acknowledge it or not.

 

Here is a teachable moment. It is very difficult at times to discipher the mood behind black printed letters. I have been often misread and charged with attitudes because of what I said when nothing of the sort was true in my actual attitude when writing it. Face to face provides a better context to discipher true attitudes by tone and facial expression which are often impossible to discipher in forum discussion.

Termonology often obscures what is being said. I don't like the terms used. For example "salvation" is a generic term that covers the whole gamma from eternity past to eternity future (purpose, predestination, election quickening, repentance and fath, justification, progressive santification, glorification, etc.).

Moreover, some Baptist confessions state that repentance and faith are fruits of regeneration. "unconditional" in regard to election refers to initial cause for God's choice found in God's own purpose of grace rather than in either good or evil responses of men (Rom. 9:11). "Conditional" salvation depending on what is meant by "salvation" can mean the initial cause for justification of life is found in man's will or response - abilty (repentance and faith) or it may mean in the scheme of God's enabling grace that it must only precede justification of life and thus the condition does not refer to ability but to order in sequence.

I provided a Biblcial based explanation for this. I don't believe you ever responded to it (at least I have not noticed any response).

 

This is VERY TRUE. I have LITTLE DOUBT that if you and I were discussing this topic over coffee at a local Starbucks that we would get along swimmingly. In fact, I think we'd most likely be close friends...as my best friend in the world is Calvinistic and so is my brother, who is a missionary. I really do play nice with others.

Even the emotionicons that wink, smile, laugh and the sort don't help much because sometimes I put in a wink to indicate I'm just kidding around and its taken as a rude jab. It is hard to read intent on the forum, so it typically best to try to read the best possible intent and stick to only the topic.

I also concur that defining of terms is necessary to have a profitable discussion...plus we must both acknowledge that different groups have various approaches to these issues and thus what may be perceived as misrepresentation is actually just a different representation of a common belief.

 

Yes, on a personal face to face level, I cannot think of anyone who dislikes me even though we disagree. I believe the same is true of you.

Yep!

Yes, it is difficult at times because even the terms being used by the writer may not express exactly what he is attempting to explain. I know that is true when I try to express how I believe how the gospel becomes the creative word of God within the heart of man.